There are two possible answers, then, to this question. The first applies if the carpet is real property. Then conceivably, exclusion j.(5) could eliminate property damage coverage for: “that particular part of real property on which you…are performing operations.” But here, it could be argued that the insured was not performing operations on the carpet when it was damaged; the insured was moving furniture at the time of the damage and was not performing his work on the carpet. It can be said that moving furniture is a necessary part of carpet cleaning operations, but the fact is that the property damage was not done while the insured was working on the carpet. There is enough ambiguity in this situation to decide the question in favor of the insured. And, if exclusion j.(5) does not apply, then neither does j.(6). Here, the damage was caused not because the insured incorrectly performed his work, that is, incorrectly cleaned the carpet; the damage was caused by moving furniture. The work itself (carpet cleaning) was not done incorrectly; the damaged property (the carpet) does not have to be repaired because the insured's work on it was done incorrectly.

If the carpet in question is an area rug, it is tempting to apply exclusion j.(4) for personal property in the “care, custody, or control” of the insured. But the area rug was not in the insured's control at this point, nor was it in his care or custody any more than the building in which he was working was in his care, custody, or control.